Energy Transition: Nuclear SMRs vs Renewables

This video explains how advanced small modular nuclear reactor (SMR) technology can be used to completely replace all of the energy we now derive from fossil fuels, for less investment than what’s already been spent on renewable energy in the last two decades alone.

[mauritsdolmans]

Eric: The core message is excellent and I subscribe to it 100%: we need to commercialize LFTRs as a solution to the climate crisis, energy security, energy poverty, nuclear waste, and health & safety. I salute you for this. I recommend, however, that you make a revised version of the video without the negative messaging. Consider your audience: LFTRs by Copenhagen Atomics, Flibe Energy in the US, and others should be attractive to Red and Blue states, North and South, East and West, libertarians as well as those who think it is the role of Government to help develop this technology (as was done with nuclear energy, the Internet, the space program, etc). The way it is written now could alienate a lot of people who should support your message.

So, what about turning this in the hopeful, inspiring message that it could be, and encouraging the audience to support this solution. As we say where I come from, you don't catch flies with vinegar. For instance,

(a) Why diss renewables? That alienates 50+% of your potential support base. It's not logical to say that supporting renewables has done nothing good -- without renewables, emissions would have been much higher. Why not say that we should do for LFTRs what we did for renewables, because they complement each other? If you think -- as I do -- that LFTRS will end up being much more competitive, the market will eventually go for LFTRs where they are more suited.

(b) Why argue that stagnation of US use of energy per capita equals poverty? That argument is unnecessary and not watertight (energy efficiency has made great strides to reduce per capita waste of energy, for instance, and poverty is caused by a multitude of factors including many that are totally unrelated to energy costs). Why not bring the positive message that LFTRs could end energy poverty in the US, but also bring prosperity worldwide, which benefits everyone?

(c) Why criticize the current administration as if they are the only ones responsible? Is it within his power to change the NRA attitude to "safety" or is it enshrined by law, requiring bipartisan support and voters' support to change it? To me, the criticism seems unnecessary, ignores other reasons why the US Gvt is not (yet) supporting LFTRs, ignores current administration support for nuclear, and ignores other reasons for US political stagnation. It is counterproductive in that it alienates potential supporters in a polarized environment. Why not explain what I say above, that (a) LFTRs are a fantastic solution to all of the worries that face us: the climate crisis, dependence on conflict regions like Russia and the Middle East for energy, energy poverty, nuclear waste and safety, geopolitical threats, and (b) regulation should be adjusted. This is the message currently doing the rounds in the UK (see here, and here's hoping that the UK Gvt listens). This addresses concerns of *everyone* regardless of political color.

I hope you take this message the way it was intended: to support the technology and to give some feedback to convey the core message even more effectively so that it attracts to everybody.

[contactkobie]

What is your reference that Nixon ordered the SMR research to be destroyed? I couldn't find

[Pid]

My suggestion is stop calling it nuclear energy. What you are suggesting is a different technology, so it needs a new name that people dont have preconceived ideas about.

[williamhofford]

Poland seems to be leading the way with SMR’s

[richard_ford]

Another great video. Erik, thanks for all the hard work you have put into this project!

[AnyoneCanDoScience]

A slightly different perspective here.. I work at the power company and am in a role that is responsible for the reliability of the grid where I live. First off, solars intermittency is an extreme pain for us to deal with from a reliability stand point day to day. Another issue is that so much solar was originally built where lots of land was available (far from load centers) before lines were upgraded for the increased generation. This in turn causes us to have to constantly curtail 100s of MWs of solar generation on sunny days. I love the idea for SMRs, but a couple of things that come to mind is the characteristics of the units. Base load was mentioned throughout the video. Thats not necessarily the type of generation we need. What are the start up times of these units? What are their ramp rates? Can they pulse on AGC (automatic generation control)? When they come offline, how long do they need to be off before they can come back online? How will they respond to faults on the system? As someone that deals with generation everyday, these are extremely important questions. The NRC also requires Nuc plants to have emergency equipment onsite for them to safely shut down in the event of a blackout. I am a strong proponent of SMRs and am optimistic about their future, but there are lots of questions I have and investments needed to the existing grid before they can be a viable large scale solution. Looking forward to how this plays out! Thanks for all of your research!

[bjornhojgaard]

About time someone said it! Thank you, Erik Townsend!

[jamesagerholm]

Alvin Weinberg (the inventor of the Molten salt reactors) idea was genius but we still haven’t fixed the molten salt damage on the pipes and they still (although it is massively reduced) create nuclear waste. I think investing in renewables is a better idea.

[puptentacle]

Great to stumble into your vid. We are DEFINITELY on the same page. Shared on X/Twitter. I'm an old nuke sub sailor/IT professional. Been living off grid (26+ years) w/ solar/wind BECAUSE I'm prevented from installing an SMR (Thorium fuel cycle ?) in the back yard.

[chaptertravels]

I look to Indonesia and ThorCon power to make these innovations. China is on the verge of bankruptcy, and the ThonCon model in Indonesia is much better than LFTR. Even though they have thorium in their name, their <5% uranium-only reactor is a much better solution. Terrestrial Energy has a very similar reactor but they are trying to get a joint Canadian/US license which means no one will be able to afford it.

[rrrrrrktjtj]

Random thought here but I think AI might significantly increase the demand for reliable, scalable, and affordable electricity. This will ratchet up the pressure on gov'ts to stop kneecapping nuclear energy relatively soon.

[OhShiny]

As enticing as you make it sound, relying on someone else for you own energy needs is the root of the problem, get solar, get battery storage, electrify everything in your home and get an EV. This is how to free yourself from the greed of fossil fuel energy dependence.

[coolblu]

A huge amount of electrical production is now coming from renewables. The uptake is accelerating as the prices drop. It is now more expensive to buy the coal for a plant than it is just to scrap it and build a solar installation. Fossil fuels can no longer compete and it's not a moment too soon. If the molten salt reactors can ever be produced at a competitive price they will make a great base load resource. At the moment the only one slated to be built in the US was just scrapped because it's too expensive and can't compete with renewables. It will be interesting to see if they ever get anywhere. I doubt it because the cost of electricity from renewables will continue to fall and nothing else will be able to compete.

[karlswanson]

If you really wanted compact turbine generator use supercritical Xenon instead of supercritical CO2.

Supercritical CO2. Temp is 31c or 304.1K, density is 467kg/m3, pressure required 7.38Mpa or 73.8 atmospheres.
Supercritical Xenon. Temp is 16.6c or 289.7K, density is 1100kg/m3, pressure required 5.84MPa or 57.64 atmospheres.

Xenon would be more expensive initially because it is not as easy to acquire. If it leaked it is inert so would not be an environmental hazard.

Another possibility would be SF6 but it is a powerful greenhouse gas. It has a density of 730kg/m3.

[ryanreeson]

You did it again E. We need EVERYONE to understand the Laws of Physics as they relate to Human Energy consumption.

[alanbarbier]

This sounds exactly right to me. You should consider linking up with the Schiller Institute.

[MicahBratt]

I bet there's a lot of people who would be interested in helping with these kinds of new technologies like yourself. It would be cool if we could have channels for volunteering in different ways. Make it like an open source model.

[thewiseperson]

NuScale experience proved that SMR's are not financially viable. QED.

[JodStar]

Much appreciating this video and thought put into it. Thank-you Erik for the disclosures and proposing a different solution!

[aaronnorton]

[mark 4m27s] "In reality, technology is just what puts energy to work in order to make life better. Energy itself is the vital ingredient." Never really thought about it like that... Thank you, sir! And I solicited my government representatives to advance nuclear energy research and production as the primary form of power production in my state of residence, thanks to your letter with Mike Green of late. Keep-up the good work!